Download NAPAs and NAPs in Least Developed Countries

LDC PAPER SERIES
NAPAs and NAPs in
Least Developed
Countries
Gabrielle Kissinger and Thinley Namgyel
KEY POINTS
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
Further consideration is needed to define the difference between
“formulation” and “implementation” of National Adaptation Plans
(NAPs) at COP 19 and COP 20, as well by the Global Environment Facility,
the Green Climate Fund (GCF), and other financial contributors to LDC
NAP processes and outcomes.
LDCs can explore low-cost and ‘no regret’ adaptation strategies to
provide robust policy responses in the face of information uncertainty,
and refine assessments of economic impacts of climate risks, in
order to target adaptation investments better, as part of NAP planning
and processes.
A critical objective of NAPs is to facilitate the integration of climate
change adaptation into development policies and activities. Based on our
review, solid examples exist of LDCs mainstreaming climate plans into
national development and sector plans, which can provide models
for NAP processes and interventions.
Adequate levels of finance for both NAPAs and NAPs and ‘enhanced
direct access’ as an access modality within the GCF are critical for
LDCs to address urgent and immediate as well as medium- to long-term
adaptation needs.
Clear guidance from the UNFCCC is needed in order to support
‘country-driven’ approaches and define measurement, reporting and
verification systems for climate finance in order to help differentiate
adaptation support from official development assistance.
Table of Contents
Introduction2
NAPAs and NAPs
3
“No regret options” in LDC adaptation planning
6
Integrating NAPs into national development plans and priorities
8
Finance 15
Monitoring19
Conclusions 21
Gabrielle Kissinger is Principal, Lexeme Consulting
Thinley Namgyel is Chief of the Climate Change Division in the Bhutan National Environment Commission
The authors are grateful to Fred Kossam, Head of Climate Change and Research at the Ministry of Environment and
Climate Change Management, Malawi and Quamrul Chowdhury, LDC Lead Negotiator on Adaptation, for their valuable
comments.
Series Editor: Anju Sharma
[email protected]
ecbi
The LDC Paper Series has been produced by the ecbi Publications and Policy Analysis Unit for the LDC Group. The views expressed in the
papers in this Series are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the LDC Group or members of ecbi.
Introduction
In 2010, the 16th Conference of Parties (COP 16) to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) established a process to enable Least Developed
Countries (LDCs) to “formulate and implement national adaptation plans,” as a way to
plan and implement medium- and long-term adaptation needs.1 This process for national
adaptation plans (NAPs) builds on the experience of the LDCs in addressing short-term
“urgent and immediate adaptation needs” through the National Adaptation Programmes
of Action (NAPAs). While the NAPAs had been prepared and implemented only by the LDCs,
other developing country Parties were invited to use the modalities for formulating their
NAPs.2
The following year, COP 17 in Durban defined the objectives of the NAP process, to:
(a) “reduce vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, by building adaptive capacity
and resilience,” and
(b) ” facilitate integration of climate change adaptation, in a coherent manner, into
relevant new and existing policies, programmes and activities, in particular
development planning processes and strategies, within all relevant sectors and at
different levels, as appropriate”. 3
COP 17 also recognises that adaptation planning will be “continuous, progressive and
iterative”. This framing of adaptation in the broader development context is in recognition
of the magnified development challenges posed by climate change for LDCs due to their
development status, and the opportunity for NAPs to enable all developing countries to
assess their vulnerabilities, mainstream climate change risks, and address adaptation.4
The LDC Expert Group (LEG) prepared Technical Guidelines for the NAP process in 2012,
based on the COP’s initial guidelines, and Parties had also decided to review the guidelines
in November 2013 at COP 19 in Warsaw, Poland.5 The Global Environment Facility (GEF)
was requested at COP 18 to enable support for LDCs to start the NAP process. While
progress on this matter is to be reviewed at COP 20 in 2014, GEF is expected to report on
its response at COP 19. However, this brief assumes that the Parties will not be in a position
to revise the initial NAP guidelines this year, as countries are still in the early stages of
applying the guidelines, or still readying their relevant institutions and capacity to do so.
In order to support discussion of the above items by Parties at COP 19, this brief
explores current trends, commonalities and barriers that LDCs face in the process
of formulation and implementation of NAPs in late 2012,6 as requested by the COP.
This brief first focuses on the distinction between NAPAs and NAPs, including goals,
LDC PAPER SERIES NAPAs and NAPs in Least Developed Countries
2
rationale and processes, and examines the following four priority areas related to the
preparation of the NAPs:
1. Research, systematic observation and information systems to support vulnerability
and risk assessment; synthesising the best available climate science and other
knowledge and translating it into support for decision-making; and decision-making
in the face of uncertainty.
2. Integration of NAPs into national development plans and priorities, including
facilitating recognition of climate risks and the need for adaptation within relevant
policies; integrating climate change vulnerability and risks in the formulation of policies;
and prioritising resource allocation to the areas, sectors or populations most at risk.
3. Financial and technical support for the NAP process, including how LDCs are
funding adaptation; the distinction between NAP planning and NAP implementation;
considerations for what is necessary to support adaptation measures; and innovative
financing options to support NAP planning and response measures.
4. Monitoring and evaluating NAP processes, though clear guidance does not yet exist
from the UNFCCC.
This brief draws upon UNFCCC materials, LDC national communications to the UNFCCC,
national sectoral and development plans, and third-party assessments to provide insights
on the above issues, and explore how different countries can approach “preparation”
and “implementation” of NAPs, based on their unique national circumstances.
Recommendations are offered in each section, and the brief concludes with consideration
of emergent issues relevant to the UNFCCC negotiations.
NAPAs and NAPs
Before proceeding further, it is useful to recognise the use of the terms “NAP” and “NAP
process” in the UNFCCC decisions and guidelines and the subtle but important differences
between the two. The NAP process is seen as a larger process for enabling the planning
and implementation of adaptation at the country level. It will produce many outputs
ranging from actions to assess and fill capacity gaps and needs for building climate
resilience and mainstreaming adaptation, to outputs such as NAPs or a series of plans
that contain adaptation priorities and strategies for implementation. The outputs of the
NAP process may, depending on a country’s priorities, include more urgent and shortterm NAPAs or NAPA-like activities, longer-term national, sub-regional and local climate
adaptation plans and activities, and other relevant plans and/or processes, such as sectorbased and development plans, as depicted in Figure 1 on the next page.
LDC PAPER SERIES NAPAs and NAPs in Least Developed Countries
3
Figure 1: The NAP process and NAPAs
NAPAs
Priority adaptation activities,
addresses urgent and
immediate needs
National, sub-regional and
local climate change adaptation
plans and projects
May include national communications
to UNFCCC, sector adaptation plans,
early-warning systems, local response
measures
NAP
Medium- and long-term adaptation
needs + develop and implement
strategies and programmes to address
those needs. Integrates climate change
adaptation into relevant new and existing
policies, programmes and activities
(all relevant sectors, and levels)
The NAP process builds on the processes for NAPAs in several ways:
a) It maintains a country-driven, participatory and multidisciplinary and gender sensitive
approach, for adaptation planning and prioritisation. However, additional issues such
as vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems have been identified and the use
of the best available science, and where appropriate local and traditional knowledge,
is also specified.
b) It builds on the lessons from the short-term project-oriented focus of NAPAs
and experience of temporary NAPA teams in LDCs. The medium- and long-term
perspective of the NAPs process means that countries would require more sustainable
and permanent institutional arrangements for continuous and iterative adaptation
planning, to be integrated into national development planning processes. Gaps
and needs for technical capacity, data and information required at various levels of
adaptation planning would also need to be addressed.
Therefore the COP’s initial guidelines as well as the Technical Guidelines for the NAP process
place emphasis on building on work already undertaken and strengthening the enabling
environment for a sustainable process for adaptation planning and mainstreaming at the
country level. Table 1 on the next page summarises the relationship between NAPAs and
LDC PAPER SERIES NAPAs and NAPs in Least Developed Countries
4
NAPs. LDCs and other developing countries will start their NAP processes at various stages,
given the varying national circumstances, capacity and adaptation action already underway.
Table 1: Relationship between NAPAs and NAPs7
Objective
NAPA
NAP
●● Simplified and direct channels of communication for
●● Meant to build upon NAPAs, as a means of identifying
information relating to the urgent and immediate
adaptation needs of the LDCs.8
medium- and long-term adaptation needs and
developing and implementing strategies and
programmes to address those needs.9
●● Reduce vulnerability to the impacts of climate change
by building adaptive capacity and resilience. A
continuous, progressive and iterative process.10
●● Facilitate the integration of climate change adaptation
into relevant new and existing policies, programmes
and activities, in particular development planning
processes and strategies, within all relevant sectors
and at different levels, as appropriate.11
Rationale
●● High vulnerability and low adaptive capacity of LDCs,
which renders them in need of immediate and urgent
support to start adapting to current and projected
adverse effects of climate change. Activities proposed
through NAPAs would be those whose further delay
could increase vulnerability, or lead to increased costs
at a later stage.12
Process
●● NAPA team to identify urgent and prioritised
adaptation actions. Potential activities, which may
include capacity building and policy reform, may be
integrated into sectoral and other policies.
●● Country-driven, participatory and multidisciplinary
approach for adaptation planning and prioritisation
while considering sustainable development, gender
equality, environmental management, and cost
effectiveness.
●● NAPA document containing priority adaptation
actions for implementation submitted to the UNFCCC.
●● Implementation phase of prioritised adaptation
actions in NAPA recognised and supported through
the LDC Fund.
●● The NAPA document can be revised or updated based
on new climate risks or other circumstances.
●● Provides a means for LDC and developing countries
to enhance action on adaptation under the Cancún
Adaptation Framework (See: FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1).
●● Integrating adaptation into development planning
processes and sectors is now an objective, rather than
a recommendation (see above).13
●● While country-driven, also includes: gender
sensitivity, vulnerable groups, communities and
ecosystems have been identified and the use of the
best available science, and where appropriate local
and traditional knowledge.
●● Current guidelines and support for NAP process
aims to enhance the enabling environment for
mainstreaming adaptation and in assessing
vulnerability and adaptation. Outputs will also include
NAPs and implementation strategies for addressing
climate vulnerabilities but implementation of such
plans and strategies is not yet addressed.
●● No single document for communicating priority
adaptation actions to the UNFCCC. Progress on
“NAP process” can be communicated in National
Communications or through “other channels”.
●● NAP process is continuous, progressive and iterative.
LDC PAPER SERIES NAPAs and NAPs in Least Developed Countries
5
“No regret options” in LDC adaptation planning
Many countries use probability or likelihood assessments to guide adaptation planning,
categorise how likely modeled changes and impacts are, and assess the level of confidence
in climate change estimations. However, the quantity and quality of data in LDCs (and
many developing countries) is often limited. Although this will improve as opportunities,
resources and capacity become available, LDCs are already faced with the challenge of
developing adaptation measures. In order to provide robust policy responses in the face
of this uncertainty, LDCs can explore low-cost and “no regret” adaptation strategies as they
seek to improve upon their medium- to long-term adaptation risk assessments.14 A few
pertinent LDC examples are below:
●●
Bangladesh: Previous investments in “climate proofing” have resulted in major
impacts on economic growth and poverty reduction. Over the last 10-15 years, the
number of fatalities from natural disasters has declined, as the country’s ability to
manage risks, especially floods and cyclones, has improved and community-based
systems have been put in place.15
●●
Nepal: Nepal specifically assessed all regions to identify the most vulnerable
populations, to provide targeted support for the most urgent and immediate
responses needed, building on Nepal’s 2004 Initial National Communication to the
UNFCCC and the National Capacity Self-Assessment (2008). The country is supporting
local level adaptation programmes in the most climate vulnerable districts of the midand far-western regions of Nepal.
●●
Rwanda: Rwanda’s 2011 National Strategy on Climate Change and Low Carbon
Development (NSCCLCD) prioritised risks and potential interventions to derive
“big wins”– large-scale economy-wide programmes. Adaptation measures include
(among others): a) irrigation infrastructure as part of Integrated Water Resource
Management, to address the highest vulnerability of rural livelihoods and tea
and coffee export revenue due to dependence on rain-fed agriculture, and b)
agroforestry, to address critical fuel wood needs and social protection while avoiding
deforestation. The strategy also focuses on what it terms “quick wins”, addressing
key enabling pillars, such as institutional frameworks, finance, capacity building and
knowledge management.
●●
Solomon Islands: The National Climate Change Policy (2012-2017) of the Solomon
Islands prioritises enabling conditions and institutional environment to respond to
climate vulnerability and risks. The first proposed policy intervention is to draft and
enact national climate change legislation, to provide a clear legal mandate to the
Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management and Meteorology and
LDC PAPER SERIES NAPAs and NAPs in Least Developed Countries
6
include provisions for mandatory assessments and reporting for purposes of planning,
implementing and evaluating climate change adaptation and mitigation actions.
●●
Malawi: Malawi has developed a road map on how it would want to approach the
NAP process. The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Management, in
collaboration with other stakeholders, is developing a National Climate Change
Investment Plan which will be used as a resource mobilisation tool for implementing
climate change activities. Specifically, the Investment Plan is aimed at increasing
investment options in climate change management in the country, stimulating
strategic response measures and outlining a national vision and framework for action
by all stakeholders, thereby increasing public-private-civil society partnerships in
climate change management.
Support for NAP processes can encourage countries to prioritise and pursue “noregret” options. The Solomon Islands and Rwanda prioritise “no-regret” response
measures that support enabling conditions and institutional environments, thus solidifying
a base to support both climate adaptation and economic development. Bangladesh and
Nepal prioritise response measures based on the most vulnerable regions or populations.
Similarly, Haiti has prioritised two geographic regions that experience different levels of
climate risks, while also forecasting the consequences and impacts of climate change on
key sectors of the national economy, and seeking to strengthen the resilience of both rural
and urban communities.16 These examples highlight response measures that can have
multiple benefits, while decreasing risks.
Countries are encouraged to review critical current and future climate risks, and
ensure proposed measures and interventions are designed and prioritised to address
these, as part of NAP processes. For instance, Senegal’s rainfall deficits are considered
the largest constraint on agricultural sector growth (96% of planted area is rainfed, while
only 4% is irrigated). Agricultural production declines over the last 20 years are attributed
to decreases in rainfall, decreased soil fertility from poor agricultural practices, as well
as saltwater intrusion into rice growing areas. However, the priorities identified in the
country’s Second National Communication (based on a vulnerability assessment) did not
include targeted measures to decrease risks to agriculture and food security.
LDCs can consider how NAP planning and processes can refine assessments of
economic impacts of climate risks, in order to target adaptation investments better
(see Box: Economic impact assessment in Ethiopia on the next page) or to evaluate
better the trade-offs between inter-related sectors. For instance, although Bhutan notes
the importance of cross-linkages between key sectors and recognises the co-benefits of
adaptation measures (such as forest conservation as ecosystem based adaptation, with co-
LDC PAPER SERIES NAPAs and NAPs in Least Developed Countries
7
benefits for biodiversity, water, hydropower and carbon sinks), the country lacks economic
assessments of these co-benefits and impacts. Therefore, the NAP process could help refine
assessments of cost-benefits, particularly for activities that may involve trade-offs, such as
the growing interest in hydropower production in Bhutan.
Box: Economic impact assessment in Ethiopia
The World Bank produced seven country case studies as part of the Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change (EACC) global
study on adaptation costs. The case studies were based on national data, disaggregated to more local and sector levels, and
compare a no-climate change baseline that reflects existing development plans with climate change scenarios. The results of
the Ethiopia case study are briefly discussed below.
Economy-wide impacts of climate change: Assessed using a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model. The results
of the modeling suggest that the GDP losses are significant but diverse across scenarios, highlighting the high degree of
vulnerability of Ethiopian agriculture and infrastructure to future climate shocks.
Inter-sectoral analysis and potential interactions and conflicts between agriculture, roads and hydropower,
under climate change scenarios: The modeling of inter-sectoral effects between 2001 and 2050 identifies agriculture at
greater risk than hydropower. If priority is given to hydropower, up to a billion cubic meters of water might be taken away
from irrigated agriculture, causing a 30–40% yield drop across 250,000 hectares that would be forced to revert to rainfed
conditions.
Relevant findings:
●● In evaluating overall economic well-being, findings show that adaptation investments reduce, but do not completely
eliminate, economic losses under adaptation scenarios; that gains in economic well-being can be achieved at relatively low
cost; and that adaptation lowers income variability.
●● The economic benefits of the adaptation strategy are significantly larger than the project-level costs of implementing it,
resulting in benefit/cost ratios ranging from 5 to over 13.
●● Importantly, adaptation restores the variability of agriculture GDP growth close to the baseline scenario.
●● Due to the uncertainty of the future climate, a risk-based investment planning approach is recommended and robust
decision-making principles are needed to minimise the “regrets” of climate-sensitive decisions (for instance, building
costly dams may not be necessary under ‘wet’ climate change scenarios, but improved transport infrastructure is a sound
investment under all scenarios).
Source: World Bank (2010). Ethiopia - Economics of adaptation to climate change. Vol. 1. World Bank, Washington D.C. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/
en/2010/01/16279299/economics-adaptation-climate-change-ethiopia
Integrating NAPs into national development plans and priorities
The UNFCCC process acknowledges that climate change risks magnify development
challenges for LDCs, and that planning for adaptation at the national level should be
coordinated with national sustainable development objectives, plans, policies and
programmes.17 Linking adaptation strategies to planned development projects or other
non-adaptation efforts can safeguard those development investments from climate
change impacts, and also result in significant cost savings.
LDC PAPER SERIES NAPAs and NAPs in Least Developed Countries
8
For many LDCs, potential economic impacts of climate change on key sectors dictate
that increased attention be paid to addressing these issues directly within the sector
and national development plans. However, countries are at different stages of planning
and integrating climate adaptation measures, depending on their unique national
circumstances. Many countries have prepared initial vulnerability and risk assessments and
proposed initial adaptation measures as part of national communications to the UNFCCC
or national planning processes, but need to iteratively refine these plans and define
pathways for integration with sector and development plans. Lessons from twenty years of
multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) under the Rio Conventions offer important
insights on key enabling elements and success factors for integrating the NAP processes
(see Box: Lessons in integration for NAPs, from the Rio Conventions on the next page).
Some countries have framed climate adaptation goals in national development
plans, with subsequent sectoral and climate-change plans as a means to refine
planning, appropriate response measures and implementation. This means that
rather than climate adaptation goals needing to be retrofitted and mainstreamed into
development plans, the development plans drive the need at the outset for adaptation
planning and response. Relevant examples include:
●●
●●
Solomon Islands: One of the eight objectives of the National Development Strategy
(NDS) (2011–2021) is to respond to climate change and manage the environment,
seeking to mainstream climate change into national development planning. The
National Climate Change Policy (2012–2017) should help enable this, but will need to
reach beyond the Ministry of Environment for success in implementation, which may be
possible if enabling legislation is passed and the Climate Change Council is put in place.
●●
The NDS promotes a holistic and sustainable approach to natural resources
management and develops measures to manage and reduce natural disaster risks,
which are of primary concern.
●●
Plan authorities stressed that one impediment to private sector growth is the
country’s vulnerability to climate change, in particular the absence of climate
change-proof infrastructure, and the impacts on income in rural areas.
●●
The authorities are planning on developing an adaptation and migration strategy
with the help of development partners to mitigate adverse impacts on the most
vulnerable.
Rwanda: Rwanda’s NSCCLCD seeks to mainstream climate change into Vision 2020,
Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy 2013-2017 (EDPRS) and
sector strategies. The NSCCLCD aims to guide the process of mainstreaming climate
resilience and low carbon development into key sectors of the economy, as depicted
in the strategic framework in Figure 2 on page 11.
LDC PAPER SERIES NAPAs and NAPs in Least Developed Countries
9
Box: Lessons in integration for NAPs, from the Rio Conventions
Leadership: High-level political leadership and involvement is essential to signal any significant changes from business as
usual, and rope in other related sectors.
Focus on establishing a process, not producing a document: Establish an effective and durable participatory process
for integrated planning, implementation and monitoring, rather than on a one-off national consultation process resulting in a
national plan document.
Realistic planning needs clarity of funding: National planning exercises are likely to be more realistic from the start if
there is an idea of the funding available for implementation. Otherwise, they could end up as overly ambitious wish-lists.
Use existing structures and processes: The use of existing national processes (such as existing mechanisms for devolved
governance) can ensure better mainstreaming, longer-term sustainability, allow for iterative planning, and ensure better
capacity-retention and cost-effectiveness.
Subsidiarity and sub-national strategies: Define pathways for national plans to include and address sub-national, local,
community and stakeholder concerns and priorities, particularly given the importance of adaptation planning and response
measures at local levels.
Umbrella framework to lay the groundwork: An umbrella framework for national planning, implementation and
monitoring related sustainable development efforts, based on national structures and mechanisms for decentralised planning,
including meaningful participation and encompassing key environment and development processes, could help to bring down
the cost and increase effectiveness of such national planning exercises.
Meaningfully broaden the process beyond the environment department: Climate change holds great potential to
undo or put at risk economic and development gains, therefore adaptation planning and implementation must include the
development sector, for effective cross-sectoral mainstreaming.
Participation: The range and depth of participation is critical. Mechanisms are needed to ensure the involvement of
stakeholders in every step, from planning to implementation and monitoring. Efforts should be made to include the voices of
traditionally marginalised groups by overcoming social and cultural barriers, and well as the private sector and the scientific
community.
Emphasis on results instead of perfect project documents: Combine a light touch process to access predictable
funds and allow longer- and medium- term planning, with a much greater focus on accountability through monitoring
of implementation and evaluation of results. This will require investments in strengthening the capacity of countries and
communities to monitor and report results.
Adapted from: Sharma, A. (2009). Planning to Deliver: Making the Rio Conventions more Effective on the Ground. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ).
Eschborn, Germany.
LDC PAPER SERIES NAPAs and NAPs in Least Developed Countries
10
Figure 2: Strategic Framework for Rwanda’s National Strategy on Climate Change and
Low-Carbon Development
Vision 2050: For Rwanda to be a developed climate-resilient, low-carbon economy by 2050.
Guiding Principles
Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction
Good Regional and Global Citizenship
Sustainability of the Environment and Natural resources
Gender Equality and Equity
Welfare and Wellness of all citizens in a growing population
Strategic Objectives
To achieve Energy Security and a Low Carbon Energy Supply
that supports the development of Green Industry and Services
Development and preservation of
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
To achieve Sustainable Land Use and Water Resource
Management that results in Food Security, appropriate Urban
To achieve Social Protection, Improved
Health and Disaster Risk Reduction that
reduces vulnerability to climate change
Programmes of Action
Sustainable
intensification of
small-scale
farming
Agricultural
diversity of
markets
Sustainable
land use
management
Integrated
Water Resource
Management
Low carbon
energy grid
Small-scale
energy access in
rural areas
Disaster
management
and Disease
prevention
Green industry
and private
sector
development
Climate
compatible
mining
Resilient
transport
systems
Low carbon
urban
systems
Ecotourism,
conservation
and PES
Sustainable
forestry,
agroforestry
and biomass
Climate data
and
projections
Finance
Capacity
Building
and Knowledge
Management
Technology,
Innovation and
Infrastructure
Enabling Pillars
Institutional
Arrangements
Integrated
Planning and Data
Management
Roadmap for Implementation
Big Wins, Quick Wins and Further Work
Integrating the Strategy into Vision 2020, EDPRS 2013-2017, sector strategies
LDC PAPER SERIES NAPAs and NAPs in Least Developed Countries
11
●●
●●
Identifies all sectors involved in each ‘programme of action,’ stresses cross-sectoral
linkages by identifying responsible institutions, and give estimates of time, cost,
impact on emissions reduction and climate resilience and the multiple sources of
climate finance that could fund implementation.
●●
The first two enabling pillars call for mainstreaming into sectoral and development
plans, and the next two pillars call for integration into multiple levels of
government, including sub-national institutional arrangements and for Local
Adaptation Plans of Action and Locally Appropriate Mitigation, and District
Development Plans. Multiple stakeholders are involved, including the private
sector and civil society.
Uganda: The National Development Plan (2010/11–2014/15) identifies climate change
as an ‘enabling sector,’ along with defence and security, justice, law and order, and others,
that provide a conducive environment and framework for efficient performance of all
sectors of the economy. The Plan identifies the objective of developing national capacity
for coordination and implementation of climate change adaptation and mitigation
activities in the country in support of social welfare and national development, and calls
for a national climate change policy as a strategy to achieve this.
Opportunities exist for NAP processes to mainstream climate plans into national
development and sector plans. LDC examples explored below provide examples of how
NAPs can assist integration. These can range from targeted interventions to create linkages,
particularly as development and sector plan revisions occur, to more comprehensive
integrated planning and ensuring harmonisation between levels (local, sub-regional and
national).
●●
Bangladesh: The Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (BCCSAP) (2009), which
includes six major themes and 44 programmes, offers a blueprint for mainstreaming
climate change issues into planning processes.18 The Sixth Five Year Plan (2011)19
includes a core objective to encourage research on adaptation to climate change.
Though the need for mainstreaming is mentioned in Chapter 10 on Environment,
Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management, it is not central in the other sectoral
plans, and no mention of the BCCSAP is made, except in Chapter 10.
●●
Bangladesh’s Second National Communication to the UNFCCC (2012) notes there
is still no firm implementation framework for the BCCSAP yet, and this needs to be
set up. In the meantime, the government has established a Climate Change unit in
the Ministry of Environment and Forests and a Department of Climate Change has
been approved to be established as an operating arm of the ministry.
●●
An expert committee has recommended that for smooth integration of adaptation
in sectoral development activities, a four-tier monitoring mechanism should
LDC PAPER SERIES NAPAs and NAPs in Least Developed Countries
12
be put in place, involving the line agency, an inter-ministerial Coordination
Committee with representation from a proposed high-powered Steering
Committee on Climate Change, and the Accountant General.
●●
●●
Bhutan: The 11th Five Year Development Plan (2013-2018) has climate resilience
and a carbon neutral goal as key result areas at the national and sectoral levels.20
Mainstreaming of environment, climate change and poverty alleviation into
development planning down to the local government level has also been initiated.
While the NAPA and national communications process identified vulnerabilities
and adaptation needs, poor or scant data and low technical capacity has hampered
successful integration of climate change adaptation into national, sectoral and local
development plans.
●●
●●
The NAP process is expected to fill such gaps and provide more robust adaptation
plans and actions for integration and implementation at the various levels for
climate resilient development.
Cambodia: Aims to mainstream climate change into the National Strategic
Development Plan (NSDP) for 2014–2018.21 Further, the NAP process will help address
gaps in existing work, including the Cambodia Climate Change Strategic Plan (CCCSP)
that only serves as strategic objectives. Multiple sectors have now developed climate
adaptation plans, as sectoral agency input to the CCCSP. The degree to which these
are mainstreamed in sectoral plans is unclear, and the National Strategic Development
Plan Update (2009–2013) does not account for climate change, except in the natural
resource and water sector chapters.22
●●
●●
NAP support could assist Bangladesh in these integration steps.
An opportunity exists to include this in sectoral and development strategies that
are presumably being drafted in 2013 for the next four-year plan.
Nepal: The Climate Investment Funds’ Pilot Programme on Climate Resilience (PPCR)
is anticipated to significantly contribute towards building national capacity and
institutions, and help develop and implement a Strategic Programme for Climate
Resilience (SPCR) for Nepal. Nepal’s current five-year plan and the Medium-Term
Expenditure Framework focus on poverty reduction but lack explicit consideration of
climate change risks and suggestions for possible responses.23
●●
●●
Nepal could identify NAP pathways to integrate climate adaptation into the next
(or revisions to the current) five-year plan, and to harmonise the SPCR with NAP.
Tanzania: The country’s NAP process will include review of existing institutional
arrangements, ranging between national, local and/or sectoral policies, plans,
LDC PAPER SERIES NAPAs and NAPs in Least Developed Countries
13
strategies and programmes. Tanzania has already prepared guidelines for doing so.24
Tanzania plans to integrate NAP priorities into their Five Year Plan.25
●●
Tuvalu: The National Strategic Action Plan for Climate Change and Disaster Risk
Management (NSAP), approved by Cabinet and Parliament in 2011, operationalises
Strategic Priority 7 on Environment (Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management) of
the Te Kakeega II (2005–2015) – National Strategy for Sustainable Development, and the
Te Kaniva (2012-2012) - National Climate Change Policy (designed to be cross-cutting).
●●
The NSAP covers strategies and actions, responsible agencies, implementation
arrangements, estimates of implementation costs, and monitoring and evaluation.
●●
The need for the NSAP was identified in Tuvalu’s NAPA. The NSAP will mainstream
climate change and disaster risk reduction into sector plans.
In some cases, national development plans indicate future efforts to plan for
adaptation and bring that into development planning, signaling the need
for development or refinement of national adaptation plans and proposed
interventions. Burundi’s Vision 2025 notes the importance of addressing climate change
impacts on important export crops such as coffee and tea. Lesotho’s NSDP identifies the
importance of reducing vulnerability to climate change impacts on poverty, agriculture
and infrastructure.
For some LDCs, NAP processes can provide an important platform to create necessary
linkages between existing policies, or to support new ones. Mali’s newly created
(2010) Environment and Sustainable Development Agency seeks to promote sustainable
development by mainstreaming environment components into policies, development
projects and programmes. A national policy on climate change is under development.
Niger’s Poverty Reduction Strategy (PDES) (2012-2015 version) does not link to the NAPA
or Second National Communication, so while there is mention of the need for coordination
of sectoral policies, current policies do not enable or promote linkage. Similarly, Senegal’s
Second National Communication (2010) seeks to provide a road map to enhance strategic
decisions for better climate change adaptation, and notes the need for this strategy to
be later integrated to the national development strategy. However, the revised National
Strategy for Economic and Social Development (2013-2017) (DPES) does not reference or
build on this identified need. Though the DPES mentions at the outset that adaptation
to climate change is a major new challenge, particularly phenomena such as flooding,
coastal erosion and salinisation, the sector sections of the strategy largely omit reference
to climate adaptation, particularly the agriculture and water sections, with the exception of
the section on the environment and sustainability. This points to the opportunity for NAP
processes to focus on tangible policy and programmatic linkages.
LDC PAPER SERIES NAPAs and NAPs in Least Developed Countries
14
Finance
While the review of financial support through the LDC Fund (LDCF) for LDCs to formulate
NAPs is not directly on the agenda at COP 19 (rather, it is on the agenda for COP 20), Parties
will have the opportunity to consider future long term finance needs and availability of
resources for NAP preparation. The finance agenda at COP 19 will include a report of the
GEF that will include how support for the NAP process has been enabled from the LDCF.
Parties are also closely watching the development of the business model framework of the
Green Climate Fund, which will also report progress to COP 19.
Estimates of LDC funding needs in order to implement their NAPAs stands at roughly US$ 5
billion. Additional contributions estimated at US$ 3 billion to the LDCF would be necessary
to meet that need, excluding co-financing.26 Cumulative donor pledges to the LDCF have
amounted to US$ 605.3 million. Of the 47 countries that have completed their NAPAs, 46
have accessed US$ 537.90 million for 109 projects to address their urgent and immediate
adaptation needs.27 The 2013 progress report on the LDCF notes,
“There are persistent barriers to further scaling up and mainstreaming
adaptation. The current supply of resources for adaptation continues to
fall far short of current and projected demand. …In addition, adaptation
finance remains highly unpredictable, providing vulnerable countries with
few opportunities and incentives to invest in longer-term capacity building,
institutional frameworks, planning and investments. As a result, adaptation
remains inadequately coordinated and monitored in many countries.”28
There are other funds that could support LDC adaptation planning and implementation
(see Table 2 on page 17), though the LDCF is the primary source LDCs can tap into for
NAPAs and NAPs.
The decision to provide financial resources to enable LDCs to start the NAPs process was
taken at COP 18 in Doha, Qatar. The GEF was requested “to provide funding from the Least
Developed Countries Fund to meet the agreed full cost, as appropriate, of activities to
enable the preparation of the national adaptation plan process”.29 The progress made in
response to this decision will be assessed in 2014 at COP 20. In June 2013, the GEF Council
defined the GEF’s approach to operationalising support towards the preparation of the
NAP process.30 The key elements of this approach are as follows:
●●
Support will be contingent on the availability of resources through contributions to
the funds.
●●
A flexible approach, tailored to country-specific needs, circumstances and capabilities,
LDC PAPER SERIES NAPAs and NAPs in Least Developed Countries
15
with GEF support being determined on a case-by-case basis, with specific, measurable
and time-bound results, is proposed. Further, “…while the NAP process may entail the
development of a plan or plans, any support provided by the GEF, through the LDCF
and the SCCF [Special Climate Change Fund], for the NAP process would differ from
past LDCF financing towards the preparation of NAPAs both in its objectives and its
scope”.
●●
NAPA completion is not a precondition for accessing LDCF financing towards the
NAP process.
●●
Unlike the support for preparation of NAPAs, which was under the “enabling activity”
modality, support for the NAPs process will be provided through medium- or full-sized
projects (MSPs and FSPs). NAPA implementation projects are already supported as
MSPs or FSPs.
●●
In balancing support for NAPAs and NAPs, the GEF has taken the principle of equitable
access to the LDCF into account. Recipient countries will have to determine how they
wish to pursue support for NAPA implementation vis-à-vis the NAP process within the
resources available equally to each LDC.
●●
The objectives, principles, scope and modalities for GEF support, through the LDCF
and the SCCF, for the preparation of the NAP process is based on the initial COP
guidelines for formulation of NAPs, including: laying the groundwork and addressing
gaps; preparatory elements; implementation strategies; and monitoring, reporting
and review.
●●
GEF experience suggests that, on the one hand, the implementation of tangible
adaptation measures in response to urgent needs (NAPAs), and on the other hand,
efforts to integrate adaptation into relevant new and existing policies, programmes
and activities, are often mutually supportive.
●●
Given that the NAP process seeks to integrate adaptation into development policy
and planning, any request for funding in support of such a process should follow the
principle of additional cost (adaptation costs are added to costs of business-as-usual or
baseline development).
Thus, the Council is affirming support for both planning and preparatory activities, such as
strengthening enabling environments, based on diverse country needs and circumstances.
This is important, in order to serve the needs of LDCs, ranging from refining vulnerability
and risk assessments, developing climate adaptation plans, to mainstreaming adaptation
and implementing response measures to address medium- to long-term risks. What is less
clear is the degree to which support for implementation of adaptation measures will be
pursued in this stage of financing NAP processes.
LDC PAPER SERIES NAPAs and NAPs in Least Developed Countries
16
Table 2: Current and future sources of funding for LDC adaptation
The Green Climate
Fund
Though modalities are still to be determined, the UNFCCC agreed, in the Cancún decision (FCCC/CP/2010/7/
Add.1) that “a significant share of new multilateral funding for adaptation should flow through the Green
Climate Fund” and “..[t]he Green Climate Fund will support developing countries in pursuing project-based
and programmatic approaches in accordance with climate change strategies and plans, such as national
adaptation programmes of action, national adaptation plans and other related activities” (Decision 3/CP.17,
annex, paragraph 36).
Least Developed
Countries Fund
The LDCF, with the GEF as its secretariat, was established to address the special needs of LDCs, with
adaptation as the top priority, and a mandate to fund NAPAs. Seeks to reduce vulnerability in sectors that
are central to development and livelihoods, such as water, agriculture and food security, health, disaster
risk management and prevention, infrastructure and fragile ecosystems. In response to the request from
COP 18, the LDCF will also support the activities to enable the preparation of the national adaptation
plan process in LDCs.
Special Climate
Change Fund
Also housed within the GEF, the SCCF was established in 2001 to support adaptation and technology
transfer in all developing country Parties to the UNFCCC. The COP has urged developed countries to
mobilise financial support for the NAP process for non-LDC developing country Parties through bilateral
and multilateral channels, including through the SCCF (FCCC/CP/2012/L.2). The SCCF supports both
long-term and short-term adaptation activities in water resources management, land management,
agriculture, health, infrastructure development, fragile ecosystems, including mountainous ecosystems,
and integrated coastal zone management.
Adaptation Fund
Financed through a 2% share of the proceeds from Certified Emission Reductions issued for projects under
the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism; its mandate is to fund concrete adaptation projects and
programmes in developing countries.
Pilot Programme
for Climate
Resilience
A targeted programme of the Strategic Climate Fund under the Climate Investment Funds framework, a trust
fund at the World Bank. It aims to pilot and demonstrate ways in which climate risk and resilience may be
integrated into core development planning and implementation.
Bilateral funds
Bilateral agreements can provide a direct link between donor and recipient country to finance adaptation
though this has proven controversial as such climate finance does not flow under the UNFCCC.
National-level
funds
Countries seeking less vulnerability to foreign aid shocks, and/or more directly linking sectoral revenues to
adaptation activities are bringing adaptation into budgetary decision-making. National-level funds can also
leverage bilateral and multilateral funds, such as Rwanda’s Fonds National de l’Environnement (FONERWA).
While the GEF Council intentions affirm the needs of LDCs, adaptation funding levels
will need to be commensurate with the task at hand. As the LDCF aptly observed, the
current supply of resources for adaptation continues to fall far short of current and projected
demand. LDCs have experienced difficulties related to the timing and quantity of finance
accessed to support NAPAs. Though developed country pledges of climate finance are
an important measure of commitment to addressing climate change, roughly 50% of the
amount of fast-start finance pledged is approved for delivery, and less than 7% is disbursed.31
Adaptation finance is about 12% of donor contributions to fast-start finance, despite the
Cancún Adaptation Framework affirming that adaptation must be addressed with the same
level of priority as mitigation. Contributing countries favour mitigation, in part due to the
ability to attract greater private sector co-finance in mitigation investments.32
LDC PAPER SERIES NAPAs and NAPs in Least Developed Countries
17
While LDCs should follow the principle of additional cost when seeking NAP
process support, donor countries should also strive to differentiate their adaptation
funding support from official development assistance (ODA). LDCs are concerned
that adaptation and fast-start funds are partially reallocated from previous donor ODA
commitments such as health, education, or infrastructure. Mainstreaming or integrating
adaptation plans and measures into development strategies and various levels of
government is critical to ensure policy coherence and country ownership. The challenge,
however, is that mainstreaming can blur the distinction between adaptation finance and
ODA. Accounting for this distinction at both contributor and recipient ends can address
this.33 Efforts to define measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) systems to achieve
this are improving under the purview of the UNFCCC Standing Committee on Finance.34
Promoting ‘enhanced direct access’35 and defining modalities within the GCF can offer
needed clarity to LDCs beginning to define NAP processes and outcomes. While there
have been challenges experienced by developing country institutions that have sought
accreditation under the two climate funds that allow limited direct access – the Adaptation
Fund and the GEF – it is clear there are benefits to enhanced direct access. Enhanced direct
access can increase country ownership of adaptation outcomes and increase the amount
of finance that reaches intended purposes (via lower transaction costs). Enhanced direct
access can also provide a means to help build fiduciary standards within LDC institutions,
particularly with National Funding Entities, operating under international guidance and
rules, by emphasising credibility, good governance, transparency, and accountability.
Reducing transaction costs, time delays, and increasing the quantum of climate finance
that reaches national, sub-regional and local needs is of utmost concern to LDCs. For
consideration:
●●
The Governing Instrument of the GCF has provided guidance on access modalities for
enhanced access, stating, “[t]he Board will consider additional modalities that further
enhance direct access, including through funding entities with a view to enhancing
country ownership of projects and programmes”.36
●●
Though access modalities to the GCF are still being defined, the GCF Board Decision
of March 2013 identified an area of convergence, such that, “[t]he Fund will have
a country-driven and owned approach, employ direct access, and other access
modalities, and leverage additional public and private resources,” and, further, noted
“[the Fund should] commence as a fund that operates through accredited national,
regional and international intermediaries and implementing agencies”.37
●●
Hence, access modalities for the GCF should be defined early on, in order for countries
to prepare their NAP process financing plans and arrangements, and also prepare
in-country financial institutions for these new responsibilities, should they choose to
LDC PAPER SERIES NAPAs and NAPs in Least Developed Countries
18
pursue enhanced direct (and direct) access. LDCs will need to continue to see progress
on the GCF and financing for the long run, and adequate levels of finance to meet
adaptation needs.
Possibilities also exist for countries to establish their own domestic sources of
funding, which may benefit from bilateral funding arrangements. A recent example
is the agreement between the UK and Rwanda committing £22.5 million in non-budget
support aid over two years to Rwanda’s FONERWA, the new basket fund created to
address climate change and environmental degradation. While the UK’s support is critical
to kick-start FONERWA, domestic resources of £1.7 million have been earmarked for the
fund, which come from environmental fines and fees, environmental impact assessment
fees and other environmental fees. It is the only fund in Rwanda mobilising resources
from the government’s own revenue sources, making it less vulnerable to external aid
shocks.38 The Bangladesh Climate Change Resilience Fund (BCCRF) is a multi-donor trust
fund, managed and implemented by the Government of Bangladesh, with some fiduciary
management, transparency and accountability functions performed by the World Bank
for a limited duration. As a National Funding Entity, the BCCRF provides a model for how
enhanced direct access can work under the GCF. The Bhutan Trust Fund for Environmental
Conservation, which had a biodiversity conservation focus, has also widened its scope
and opened a window for climate change action, but is currently very limited in scope
due to current levels of finance available. Countries are encouraged to identify how to
finance climate adaptation as part of the NAP planning process, in order to ensure smooth
implementation.
Monitoring
Monitoring and evaluating progress in national adaptation planning and
implementation will be very important, though clear guidance from the UNFCCC
does not yet exist. The COP has indicated countries should monitor and review the efforts
undertaken, and provide information in their national communications on the progress made
and the effectiveness of the national adaptation plan process and other channels.39 The LEG
technical guidelines go much further, offering considerable advise on how countries can
include monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in NAP processes at the national level.40 The
NAP guidelines encourage countries to define a framework and strategy for M&E, as well
as a road map, which details sequencing of NAP components, and an M&E plan for the
NAP process. An Adaptation Committee workshop in September 2013 identified initial
framing around a common understanding of success in achieving climate resilience, across
scales and actors.41 However, further refinement including monitoring progress within the
LDC PAPER SERIES NAPAs and NAPs in Least Developed Countries
19
UNFCCC process will be required as part of the COP 19 agenda.
The UNFCCC can consider how to support “country-driven” approaches for M&E,
while also offering guidance to allow for comparability among different countries.
Due to the intention of mainstreaming NAP processes within development approaches,
countries may be challenged to identify exactly how adaptation measures have differed
from business as usual. Drawing from lessons in climate mitigation, the nuances of how
a ‘baseline’ is determined, against which interventions are measured, is not a simple
process. Many countries are creating elements of baselines in their vulnerability and risk
assessments, in order to project future trajectories and gauge the difference. However,
these baselines may shift as more refined assessments occur, and indicators of progress
may similarly shift. Assessments of the effect of adaptation response measures require
adequate attribution of what caused a change from the baseline, which takes time to
determine, but are critical for assessing effectiveness and identifying when and how
course-corrections are needed in order to achieve adaptation goals. Countries should also
consider how M&E can be monitored at various scales, including community levels, and
thus M&E systems should strive for ‘downward accountability.’
LDCs will benefit from developing M&E frameworks as part of the NAP process, or
which the NAP can fit into, that benefit broader economic development, social and
policy-making needs. For instance, Cambodia’s Strategic Plan of Rural Development
for Climate Change Adaptation seeks to design an M&E system for its 10-year strategy
(2013-2022) that will be used in management and decision-making and not only as a
reporting mechanism. It will be supported with the Ministry of Rural Development’s
existing resources committed for its operation.42 Though not an LDC, Kenya provides a
useful example that is highly relevant to LDCs. Kenya’s National Climate Change Action
Plan includes a proposed National Benefits and Performance Measurement System that
includes indicators to measure and report benefits from adaptation actions, and synergies
between adaptation and mitigation.
As mentioned in the section on finance above, efforts to MRV systems to track and account
for climate finance are being addressed, under the purview of the UNFCCC Standing
Committee on Finance.43 Technical issues and political shortcomings will need to be
addressed to improve upon current climate finance MRV practice and reporting.44
LDC PAPER SERIES NAPAs and NAPs in Least Developed Countries
20
Conclusions
NAPAs provide a means of communicating information relating to the urgent and
immediate adaptation needs of the LDCs, whereas NAPs are meant to build upon NAPAs,
as a means of identifying medium- and long-term adaptation needs and developing and
implementing strategies and programmes to address those needs. While this distinction
is becoming clearer to Parties, what is not yet clear is how current and future climate
finance will distinguish between these two. Further refinement is also needed to define the
difference between “formulation” and “implementation” of NAPs when reviewing progress
in NAPs at COP 19 and COP 20.
The COP’s initial NAP guidelines and the LEG NAP Technical Guidelines place emphasis
on building on work already undertaken and in strengthening the enabling environment
for a sustainable process for adaptation planning and mainstreaming at the country level.
Based on current LDC practice, we find that NAP processes can encourage countries to
prioritise and pursue ‘no-regrets’ adaptation response options; that refining assessments
of the economic impacts of climate risks will be of relevance for all LDCs; and as part of
NAP processes, LDCs can review critical current and future climate risks, and seek to ensure
proposed measures and interventions are designed and prioritised to address these.
A critical objective of NAPs is to facilitate the integration of climate change adaptation into
relevant new and existing policies, programmes and activities, in particular development
planning processes and strategies, within all relevant sectors and at different levels. Based
on our review of LDCs, solid examples exist of LDCs mainstreaming climate plans into
national development and sector plans, which can be models for intervention in NAP
processes. Some LDCs have stepped beyond seeking integration, with development plans
driving the need at the outset for adaptation planning and responses. NAP processes can
provide an important platform to create necessary linkages between existing policies, or to
support new ones.
Of great concern to LDCs, based on the NAPA experiences, is whether adequate levels of
climate finance will be available to support NAPs (and pre-existing NAPAs), the timing of
finance delivery, and the modalities for access. The GEF Council has affirmed support via
the LDCF and the SCCF for both planning and preparatory activities, such as strengthening
enabling environments, based on diverse country needs and circumstances. However, it
is unclear whether funding levels will be sufficient, and how these sources will relate to
the GCF. Further refining access modalities within the GCF, particularly ‘enhanced direct
access’ is critical for LDCs seeking reduced transaction costs, overcoming time delays,
and deploying funding to sub-regional and local levels where most adaptation response
LDC PAPER SERIES NAPAs and NAPs in Least Developed Countries
21
measures occur. Thus, enhanced direct access can greatly increase country ownership
of adaptation interventions. Methods for differentiating adaptation support from
development aid will be important. One way to achieve this is by refining measurement,
reporting and verification systems for adaptation finance.
The monitoring and evaluation of progress in adaptation planning and implementation
at both national and international levels will be very important, though clear guidance
from the UNFCCC does not yet exist. LDCs will benefit from developing M&E frameworks
as part of the NAP process, or which the NAP can fit into, that benefit broader economic
development, social and policy-making needs.
1 UNFCCC (2011). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its seventeenth session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11
December 2011. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1
2 UNFCCC (2010). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10
December 2010 . United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Decision 1/CP.16, para 16. Also UNFCCC
(2011). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its seventeenth session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11
December 2011. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1, Decision 5/CP.17,
paras 28 & 29
3 UNFCCC (2011). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its seventeenth session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11
December 2011. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1
4 UNFCCC (2011). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its seventeenth session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11
December 2011. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1
5 UNFCCC (2011). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its seventeenth session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11
December 2011. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1, Decision 5/CP.17,
para 9
6 Least Developed Countries Expert Group (2012). National Adaptation Plans. Technical guidelines for the national
adaptation plan process. Annex II. UNFCCC Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. December 2012. Also UNFCCC (2013). On the
23rd meeting of the Least Developed Countries Expert Group, Lomé, Togo, 13-16 March 2013. FCCC/SBI/2013/8
7 Relative to LDCs. Aspects related to developing countries (not defined as LDCs) are not included in this table.
8 UNFCCC (2001). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its thirteenth session, held in Marrakech from 29 October to 10
2001. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.4
9 UNFCCC (2010). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10
December 2010 . United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1, para 15
10 UNFCCC (2011). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its seventeenth session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11
December 2011. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1
11 UNFCCC (2011). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its seventeenth session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11
December 2011. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1
12 UNFCCC (2001). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its thirteenth session, held in Marrakech from 29 October to 10
2001. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.4
13 UNFCCC (2011). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its seventeenth session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11
December 2011. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1
LDC PAPER SERIES NAPAs and NAPs in Least Developed Countries
22
14 Vermeulen, S.J. et al (2013). Addressing uncertainty in adaptation planning for agriculture. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences. Vol. 110, No. 21
15 Government of Bangladesh (2011). Sixth Five-Year Plan (FY 2011-2015). Part 2: Sectoral strategies, programmes and
policies. Planning Commission, Ministry of Planning, Government of Bangladesh. Dhaka, Bangladesh
16 Government of Haiti (2012). Strategic Program for Climate Resilience
17 UNFCCC (2011). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its seventeenth session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11
December 2011. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1
18 Government of Bangladesh (2009). Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan, 2009. Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Government of Bangladesh. Dhaka, Bangladesh
19 Government of Bangladesh (2011). Sixth Five-Year Plan (FY 2011-2015). Part 2: Sectoral strategies, programmes and
policies. Planning Commission, Ministry of Planning, Government of Bangladesh. Dhaka, Bangladesh
20 Royal Government of Bhutan (2012). Guidelines for Preparation of 11th Five-Year Plan (2013-2018). Gross National
Happiness Commission.
21 Thy, S. (2013). National Preparedness for NAP. Presentation at NAP Expo: Launching of the NAP process in LDCs. 9 June.
Bonn, Germany
22 Based on author review of CCCSP, sectoral and development plan documents.
23 World Bank, GFDRR and Climate Investment Funds (2011). Vulnerability, Risk Reduction, and Adaptation to Climate
Change: Nepal. Available at: http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportalb/doc/GFDRRCountryProfiles/wb_gfdrr_
climate_change_country_profile_for_NPL.pdf
24 The United Republic of Tanzania (2012). Guidelines for integrating climate change adaptation into national sectoral
polices, plans and programmes. Office of the Vice President. September 2012
25 Anon (2013). Strategy and Roadmap for the NAP process in the United Republic of Tanzania. Presentation at NAP
Expo: Launching of the NAP process in LDCs. 9 June. Bonn, Germany. http://unfccc.int/files/adaptation/application/
pdf/tanzania_nap_expo_presentation_2013.pdf
26 Ciplet, D., Roberts, T., Khan, M., Fields, S., & Madden, K. (2013). Least Developed, Most Vulnerable: Have Climate Finance
Promises Been Fulfilled for the LDCs? European Capacity Building Initiative. http://www.eurocapacity.org/downloads/
FSFReview.pdf
27 GEF (2013). Progress Report on the Least Developed Countries Fund and the Special Climate Change Fund. June 20, 2013.
GEF/LDCF.SCCF.14/03
28 GEF (2013). Progress Report on the Least Developed Countries Fund and the Special Climate Change Fund. June 20, 2013.
GEF/LDCF.SCCF.14/03
29 UNFCCC (2012). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its eighteenth session, held in Doha from 26 November to 8
December 2012. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Decision 12/CP.18
30 GEF (2013). Operationalizing Support to the Preparation of the National Adaptation Plan Process in Response to Guidance
from the UNFCCC COP. 20 June 2013. GEF/LDCF.SCCF.14/06
31 Climate Funds Update (2013). Overview of climate funds data. http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/data
32 World Resources Institute (2013). 5 Insights from Developed Countries’ Fast-Start Finance Contributions. http://insights.
wri.org/open-climate-network/2013/06/5-insights-developed-countries-fast-start-finance-contributions
33 Ciplet, D., Roberts, T., Khan, M., Fields, S., & Madden, K. (2013). Least Developed, Most Vulnerable: Have Climate Finance
Promises Been Fulfilled for the LDCs? European Capacity Building Initiative. http://www.eurocapacity.org/downloads/
FSFReview.pdf
34 UNFCCC (2013). Background Paper on the MRV of support and biennial assessments and overview of financial flows.
Standing Committee on Finance, Fifth Meeting. http://unfccc.int/files/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/
standing_committee/application/pdf/scf_5_-_background_paper_on_ba_mrv_final.pdf
35 Direct Access implies access through national or regional implementing entities accredited for direct access.
Enhanced Direct Access means access through national or regional funding entities accredited for direct access See
Müller, B. (2013). ‘Enhanced (direct) access’ through ‘(national) funding entities’ − Etymology and examples. http://www.
LDC PAPER SERIES NAPAs and NAPs in Least Developed Countries
23
oxfordclimatepolicy.org/publications/documents/EnhancedDirectAccess-04-2013.pdf
36 Green Climate Fund (2013). GCF Business Model Framework: Access Modalities. GCF/B.04/05, 11 June 2013.
37 Green Climate Fund (2013). Decisions of the Board – Third Meeting of the Board, 13-15 March 2013. GCF Decision B.0113/06. Berlin, Germany
38 Rwanda Green Fund. www.fonerwa.org
39 UNFCCC (2011). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its seventeenth session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11
December 2011. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1
40 Least Developed Countries Expert Group (2012). National Adaptation Plans. Technical guidelines for the national
adaptation plan process. December 2012. Available at <http://unfccc.int/NAP>
41 UNFCCC (2013). Adaptation Committee workshop on the monitoring and evaluation of adaptation. United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change http://unfccc.int/adaptation/cancun_adaptation_framework/adaptation_
committee/items/7744.php
42 Government of Cambodia (2012). Strategic Plan of Rural Development for Climate Change Adaptation. Ministry of Rural
Development. Phnom Penh, Cambodia
43 UNFCCC (2013). Background Paper on the MRV of support and biennial assessments and overview of financial flows.
Standing Committee on Finance, Fifth Meeting. http://unfccc.int/files/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/
standing_committee/application/pdf/scf_5_-_background_paper_on_ba_mrv_final.pdf
44 Jachnik, R. (2013). MRV of climate finance: Current status, relevant OECD work, potential ways forward. Presentation to
the Standing Committee on Finance workshop on Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) of climate finance
support. http://unfccc.int/files/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/standing_committee/application/
pdf/20130828_oecd_scf_workshop_mrv_final.pdf
LDC PAPER SERIES NAPAs and NAPs in Least Developed Countries
24